I subscribed briefly and skimmed through the January ruling. Maybe the gold
was converted to dollars in order to preserve the dollar value at that time
for recovery in the near future by claimants (when the identity issue of
claimants is settled). Also maybe OmniPay wanted to make their own
At 08:08 AM 26/01/2003 -0500, Craig Spencer wrote:
Also note: the CostaGold escrow balance has dissappeared! Hmmm...
I wonder who go that pot of gold.
Hmmm, yes we definitely want to know about that.
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a
I'm afraid we won't
(The Privacy policy blah blah blah...)
Just like we are still waiting for a resonable explanation to the fact
that the number of accounts keeps increasing by
about 6,000+ a week, and the overall e-gold reserves don't go up
(and indeed went down about 100,000 grams lately, to
Would not that approximately 100,000 grams be the (paid out?) CostaGold
escrow balance?
At 03:59 PM 26/01/2003 +0100, AnyGoldNow wrote:
about 6,000+ a week, and the overall e-gold reserves don't go up
(and indeed went down about 100,000 grams lately, to 1,541,409)
---
You are currently
Yes, that could very well be !
However, who would that have been paid out to ?
According to information I just got following verification, the people
who were defrauded by Costagold have not received anything...
Patrick,
AnyGoldNow
Would not that approximately 100,000 grams be the (paid
Yes, that could very well be !
However, who would that have been paid out to ?
According to information I just got following verification, the people
who were defrauded by Costagold have not received anything...
This is one of those questionable operations. Didn't Costagold advertised
itself
I may have to stand corrected on Costa Gold. From reading some of the emails
in this user group,
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Global-Recovery-Group-how-to-join/
it looks like the money held by e-gold was recovered by the victims of the
Costa Gold operation. If true, that would be welcome
"SnowDog" == SnowDog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SnowDog Yes, we know they only accept bailment from GSR, but the
SnowDog question is "Why?" It is my understanding that this policy
SnowDog is from the Bank of Nova Scotia.
Wasn't it Central Escrow's due diligence demands that was behind this
I wish GSR/OmniPay had a publicly viewable balance
for their e-gold accounts, why don't they?
...
I am talking about the OmniPay e-gold account 109243
Why is that not viewable?
Dagny Taggart
Because they are a privately owned company. They are under no legal
obligations whatsoever to
(Note how I elided the repeated text, so the signal
to noise gets
back to bearable, and instead inserted "..." -- some
here might
consider emulating this behavior for the benefit of
unfortunates
on the digest, since it _IS_ in the welcome message
I'm sure you
all read when you
that OmniPay is like any exchange provider
Note the use of the term "exchange provider" where market maker is mistakenly
used. As JP May pointed out, market makers are legally obligated to offer a bid
and ask price when open for business. Exchange providers can set their own bid
and ask
Always assuming that the powers that be at e-gold
were REALLY STUPID
people!
How do we know that they aren't?
Well for one thing, they worked out how to make e-gold GSR work...
You're still trying to work it out!
They have control of the spot price of
e-gold.
If you look at their
So are you saying that there has been a court order?
That would make sense then, I must have missed this in
Mr.Reid Jacksons announcement.
=
Dagny Taggart
You missed several points in his announcement. I suggest you go back and
read it again.
I am not trying to be a wise acre. Since you are unhappy with things, I
am asking how YOU would set them up differently. How do you separate
customers that make you money form the ones that cost you money? Is this
separation fair, ethical, legal, profitable?? How do you deal with each
type and
quote-
I am not trying to be a wise acre. Since you are unhappy with things, I am
asking how YOU would set them up differently. How do you separate
customers that make you money form the ones that cost you money? Is this
separation fair, ethical, legal, profitable?? How do you deal with each
e-gold ltd. is trying to maintain the purity of their metal
backing. The reason Omnipay can bail in bars when nobody else
can is that they have an account with Bank of Nova Scotia. If
an entity, corporate or human, seriously wants to bail in bars
they should create an account
Please do, I would like to read this, sounds like a
very entertaining piece of work.
It is very likely that the restriction on bailment
has nothing to do
with GSR. Has anyone asked them?
Yes. I have. It was like pulling teeth to get them
to give a straight
answer. But they finally
It is very likely that the restriction on bailment has nothing to do
with GSR. Has anyone asked them?
Yes, we know they only accept bailment from GSR, but the question
is "Why?" It is my understanding that this policy is from
the Bank of Nova Scotia.
Well, that would seem unlikely to
that OmniPay is like any exchange provider
Note the use of the term "exchange provider" where market maker is mistakenly
used. As JP May pointed out, market makers are legally obligated to offer a bid
and ask price when open for business. Exchange providers can set their own bid
and ask prices
Can someone here please explain what the essence of
the previous paragraph is?
Only post what is essential.
So it is going to continue to be OmniPay's policy to
keep secret its liquidity and solvency.
What's wrong with that?
Some have. Look at the publicly viewable balances.
I see just
What questionable activities? Define questionable
Costagold and others that are even allowed to
advertise on this list.
I don't understand this definition?
Are you saying that this is the justification to break
the law, just because other people do it?
Of course not, I just want the
272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the price
of gold has dropped 4%.
GSR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing head I win tails you
loose, no matter what they claim.
It seems that you may be assuming that if they were to sell 10 bars of gold
that they purchased back in early December, that they
ECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [e-gold-list] re: Costagold
--- "SnowDog" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the price
of gold has dropped 4%.
GSR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing head I win tails you
loose, no matter
Khurram wrote:
Exchange providors make money on selling gold at a higher price then
they bought it at.
Since the price of gold has been recently dropping, GSR bought bars
at a higher price then what they would be redeaming it at. Lets
conside the above.
GSR buys 10 bars at spot price of 272
--- Sidd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Khurram wrote:
Exchange providers make money on selling gold at a
higher price then
they bought it at.
Since the price of gold has been recently dropping,
GSR bought bars
at a higher price then what they would be redeeming
it at. Lets
consider the
27, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [e-gold-list] re: Costagold
--- "SnowDog" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the
price
of gold has dropped 4%.
GSR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing head I win
tails you
loose, no matter what they cla
--- Jeff Fitzmyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What questionable activities? Define
questionable
Costagold and others that are even allowed to
advertise on this list.
I don't understand this definition?
Are you saying that this is the justification to
break
the law, just because
--- Jeff Fitzmyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What questionable activities? Define
questionable
Costagold and others that are even allowed to
advertise on this list.
I don't understand this definition?
Are you saying that this is the justification to
break
the law, just because
--- Reid Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is our practice to perform additional due
diligence prior to fulfilling
high value exchange orders to verify that we have
adequate knowledge of the
identity of our customer.
I have been looking for the part of the user agreement
where it says,
I wish GSR/OmniPay had a publicly viewable balance
for their e-gold accounts, why don't they?
Dagny Taggart
?
of course they do
http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html
(its not as cool as this thought http://use.e-gold.com ! :) )
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as:
You gave me the link for the e-gold examiner, since
when have these two companies merged?
I am talking about the OmniPay e-gold account 109243
Why is that not viewable?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish GSR/OmniPay had a publicly viewable balance
for their e-gold accounts, why don't
My point exactly Craig!
HEY! You guys should follow the same rules as
everyone else. If I
fulfill an
order due to a bad exchange rate, then I'll have to
live with it. Is
this
part of the Golden Rule, "He who has the gold makes
the rules?" :)
Craig
--- SnowDog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
I'd note that OmniPay is like any exchange provider, ...
OmniPay is NOT like any other exchange provider. Not only is there
a past history of unity with e-gold and an incestuous relation amoung
the principals of the "two" companies but OmniPay has the exclusive
privilege of bailment.
CCS
On this occasion I must say that Reid Jackson is quite right.
In laymans terms the authenticity of a transaction, particularly when it is
as large as this one, requires confirmation for the protection of all. If
you read the original public announcement it is the authenticity of the
--- "James M. Ray" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:21 PM -0800 1/26/01, Dagny Taggart wrote:
My point exactly Craig!
...
(Note how I elided the repeated text, so the signal
to noise gets
back to bearable, and instead inserted "..." -- some
here might
consider emulating this behavior for
--- "James M. Ray" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:21 PM -0800 1/26/01, Dagny Taggart wrote:
My point exactly Craig!
...
(Note how I elided the repeated text, so the signal
to noise gets
back to bearable, and instead inserted "..." -- some
here might
consider emulating this behavior for
On 26 Jan 2001, at 21:31, Dagny Taggart wrote:
This is from the e-gold agreement. The Costa Affair is
an OmniPay matter.
Last I heard you wanted us to believe that e-gold and
Omnipay are two different companies.
Well the GSR/Omnipay User agreement has the same
provisions. See 9.0 and 3.0
37 matches
Mail list logo
